MR. PAGLIUCA
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Judge
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed Judge
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed Counsel
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
Defense
|
Professional representation |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Carolyn
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Professional opposing counsel |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Rocchio
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Hesse
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Hesse
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Shawn
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Nicole Hesse
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
EVA ADNERSSON DUBIN
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unknown Judge
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Professional opposing counsel |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed Questioner (Q)
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Witness (A)
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Witness (unnamed)
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. ROHRBACH
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed doctor
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
The Court, The Witness (Carolyn)
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Dr. Rocchio
|
Adversarial professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Court Recess pending verdict | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Discussion regarding Exhibit 3505-005 | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal sidebar/conference regarding a response to a jury question concerning witness Carolyn and a... | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell where she is questioned about computer files and a contact list. | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell regarding lists of names associated with Jeffrey Epstein. | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Direct examination of witness Dubin regarding media reports of Epstein's flight logs | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cross-examination of Mrs. Hesse | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of Shawn | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of Nicole Hesse | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Testimony of Carolyn | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Admission of Government Exhibit 5 into evidence. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cross Examination of Lisa Rocchio by Mr. Pagliuca | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Redirect examination of witness Carolyn. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Conclusion of Shawn's testimony and calling of Nicole Hesse to the stand. | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cross-examination of witness Rocchio regarding the 'Craven article' and the definition of grooming. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court recess taken after discussion between counsel and judge. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal argument regarding the admissibility of Exhibit 52 (a book) to the jury. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Direct examination of witness Dubin regarding sexualized massages and relationship timeline. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Review of evidentiary exhibits (1J, 1K, 1M) during trial testimony. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Direct Examination of Carolyn | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cross-examination of Juan Patricio Alessi | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Afternoon Court Session during Jury Deliberations | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal argument regarding the 'business record exception' and admissibility of phone logs/notes. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Testimony | Mr. Pagliuca summarizes testimony from four witnesses (Carolyn, Jane, Kate, Mr. Alessi) regarding... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Testimony | A witness is being questioned about Jeffrey Epstein's use of masseuses. | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00008287.jpg
This document is a page from a deposition transcript of Ghislaine Maxwell, filed in court on December 9, 2021. Maxwell is questioned about whether she maintained electronic records of names and addresses for Jeffrey Epstein or if she could access such information on a computer. Maxwell denies that keeping track of Epstein's contact numbers was her job or responsibility.
DOJ-OGR-00008285.jpg
This document is a page from a deposition transcript of G. Maxwell, filed on December 9, 2021. In this excerpt, Maxwell is questioned about visiting a university to recruit individuals for Jeffrey Epstein, stating she only visited one university on two occasions. An attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, objects to a question regarding the creation of a document presented as 'Maxwell Exhibit 13'.
DOJ-OGR-00018991.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between the judge, defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca, and government attorney Ms. Comey. The discussion centers on the procedural issue of raising a new argument that was not addressed during a witness's examination, specifically in relation to the testimony of Mr. Alessi. The judge explains their position while affirming they will keep an open mind to future arguments from both sides before the court goes into recess.
DOJ-OGR-00018971.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, from the direct examination of a witness named Rodgers. The transcript captures an exchange where an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, argues against the notion that moving into a smaller apartment implies poverty, an argument the court overrules. The testimony also references a point in time when an unnamed female first met Mr. Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00018962.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a transition between witnesses. After counsel finishes with a witness named Mrs. Hesse, she is excused, and the government's counsel, Ms. Comey, calls David Rodgers to the stand. Mr. Rodgers is sworn in and, during the initial phase of his direct examination, identifies his profession as a pilot.
DOJ-OGR-00018961.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It features the cross-examination of a witness named Mrs. Hesse by attorney Mr. Pagliuca regarding message pads containing messages for Mr. Epstein. Hesse confirms she took messages at the residence when Epstein was absent and defends the accuracy of the messages she personally wrote, while acknowledging she cannot vouch for messages written by others.
DOJ-OGR-00018959.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. It captures the cross-examination of a witness, Mrs. Hesse, by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, regarding her precision in taking messages. The questioning focuses on a specific document, labeled '1C', which contains messages for a 'Mr. Epstein' and 'Sarah', but which Mrs. Hesse claims she did not write and appears blank on her copy.
DOJ-OGR-00018957.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (cross-examination) filed on August 10, 2022. Attorney Mr. Pagliuca questions witness Ms. Hesse about her knowledge of women visiting Jeffrey Epstein for massages when Ghislaine Maxwell was not present, which Hesse confirms based on messages she took. The testimony also establishes that Hesse knew Maxwell had a home in New York but was unaware of a residence in Miami.
DOJ-OGR-00018954.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a cross-examination involving a witness named Hesse. The testimony focuses on Hesse's employment history with Maxwell and Epstein, specifically when she started (roughly September 2003) and stopped working for them (around 2004), and that she was hired by Epstein after an interview with Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00018952.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the direct examination of a witness, Mrs. Hesse, by an attorney, Ms. Moe. The questioning confirms that a person named Carolyn left a message for a Mr. Epstein on March 11, 2003, and directs the witness and jury to review Government Exhibits 4B and 3E.
DOJ-OGR-00018951.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It features the direct examination of a witness, Mrs. Hesse, by an attorney named Ms. Moe. The testimony focuses on confirming the spelling of the name 'Carolyn' and identifying a specific message on 'Government Exhibit 2T' that is addressed 'for Mr. Epstein'.
DOJ-OGR-00018948.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a portion of a trial. An attorney, Ms. Moe, is beginning her direct examination of a witness, Mrs. Hesse, regarding 'Government Exhibit 1B'. After a brief delay while the witness locates the exhibit in her binder, Ms. Moe prepares to ask questions, noting the need for discretion by not reading names from the document aloud.
DOJ-OGR-00018947.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It details a portion of the direct examination of witness Mrs. Hesse by attorney Ms. Moe. During the examination, Government Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 are admitted into evidence under seal by the judge, despite an objection from attorney Mr. Pagliuca being overruled.
DOJ-OGR-00018944.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a debate between two attorneys, Mr. Pagliuca and Ms. Moe, over the admissibility of certain records. Mr. Pagliuca argues the records are unreliable and lack the necessary details to qualify for the business record exception. Ms. Moe counters that the records are being offered for the limited purpose of showing the dates and times of calls, and their trustworthiness is supported by the testimony of two other witnesses.
DOJ-OGR-00018943.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between the court and Mr. Pagliuca. The conversation centers on the rules of evidence, specifically the inadmissibility of hearsay statements within records like police or hospital reports for proving the truth of the matter asserted, unless a specific exception like a business duty to ensure accuracy applies.
DOJ-OGR-00018942.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It features an argument by attorney Mr. Pagliuca regarding the admissibility of evidence under the business records exception (Rule 803.6), specifically challenging the consistency of record-keeping in a 'book' and 'Western Union money transfer records' after an individual named Mr. Alessi left in 2002. The defense argues that the records do not meet the standard of a regular business practice.
DOJ-OGR-00018940.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, during the direct examination of a witness named Hesse. Prosecutor Ms. Moe discusses the admissibility and formatting of message exhibits and specifically reads from Government Exhibit 606, a 'household manual,' detailing strict instructions for employees on how to record phone messages.
DOJ-OGR-00018938.jpg
This document is page 76 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (US v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a legal argument between Ms. Moe (Prosecution) and Mr. Pagliuca (Defense) regarding the evidentiary weight and authenticity of message books/logs. Ms. Moe argues the logs are sequential and chronological, while Mr. Pagliuca contends they are disorganized, missing dates, and that multiple books were used haphazardly by staff.
DOJ-OGR-00018937.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) discussing the admissibility of spiral-bound message pads used by household staff. The prosecution (Ms. Moe) argues these are valid business records created under strict instructions from the defendant, while the defense (Mr. Pagliuca) counters that many messages are undated and unsigned, though noting Ms. Hesse's messages were 'well maintained.'
DOJ-OGR-00018935.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a legal argument between defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca and prosecutor Ms. Moe regarding the admissibility of a 'spiral bound book' of message slips during the direct examination of a witness named Hesse. Pagliuca objects under Federal Rules of Evidence 801 and 803.6, arguing the witness lacks the knowledge to establish a business record foundation, while Moe counters that the authenticity of the book itself is not in dispute.
DOJ-OGR-00018934.jpg
This document is a page from the trial transcript (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) where the prosecution (Ms. Moe) and defense (Mr. Pagliuca) argue over the admissibility of message slips. The prosecution asserts these records prove a victim named 'Carolyn' contacted 'the house' during the conspiracy, while the defense argues the slips lack dates and signatures and cannot be fully authenticated by the current witness (Hesse).
DOJ-OGR-00018931.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a portion of the direct examination of a witness named Hesse. An attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, objects to the admission of certain records on hearsay grounds, arguing the witness only has personal knowledge of the signatures. In response, the judge decides to address the objection after giving the jury a 15-minute morning break.
DOJ-OGR-00018924.jpg
This page is a transcript from the trial United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It documents the conclusion of the cross-examination of a witness named Shawn, regarding the timeline of her pregnancy and residence in Georgia and Florida between 2000 and 2004. Following her dismissal, the government calls its next witness, Nicole Hesse.
DOJ-OGR-00018922.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Shawn by Mr. Pagliuca. The testimony focuses on inconsistencies or confirmations regarding specific details Shawn provided to the government during interviews in June and July 2021 about phone calls received from a woman named Sarah and an unidentified woman with a distinct European accent. The witness struggles to identify the specific origin of the accent, noting only that it was foreign, European, but not British or French.
DOJ-OGR-00018920.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, featuring the testimony of a witness named Shawn. Under questioning by Ms. Comey, Shawn denies discussing Jeffrey Epstein or his testimony with his ex-partner, Carolyn, with whom he shares a child. Following this, Mr. Pagliuca begins cross-examination, establishing that Shawn visited a house in Palm Beach in 2002 and shared a phone with Carolyn.
Cross-examination regarding a 2009 deposition
A transcript of a court proceeding where Mr. Pagliuca questions the witness, Carolyn, about a deposition from October 21, 2009. The witness denies having seen the document and denies taking hallucinogenics. The court and the witness's counsel, Ms. Comey, also speak.
Juror scheduling and potential trial break
Mr. Pagliuca expresses that he does not want to delay the trial but needs to know if the juror in question is from the main or alternate pool to make a decision, as it affects his prior peremptory challenges.
Cross-examination regarding Craven article
Discussion about the definition and understanding of 'sexual grooming of children' based on a 2006 article.
Unknown
The Court mentions giving a note to Mr. Pagliuca.
Objection to Summary Witness
Pagliuca argues that Mr. Buscemi is not an appropriate summary witness under Rule 1006 because he may be analyzing complex records rather than summarizing admitted evidence.
Cross-examination duration
Estimating cross-examination will take an hour to an hour and a half.
Request for limited exclusion from Rule 615
Mr. Pagliuca requested permission to provide a copy of Dr. Rocchio's testimony to Dr. Dietz and Dr. Loftus, asking for a limited exclusion from sequestration Rule 615.
Basis for witness testimony under Rule 16
Mr. Pagliuca argues to the Court that under Rule 16, he is entitled to examine all materials a witness (Dr. Rocchio) relied on for her testimony. The Court questions the scope of this, suggesting that discarded notes or contracts may not constitute a valid basis for an opinion.
Cross-examination regarding Government Exhibit 6
Discussion regarding a study of 322 articles, specifically regarding delayed reporting of psychological issues by males versus females.
Cross-examination regarding a government contract
Mr. Pagliuca questions the witness, Rocchio, about the terms of a government contract. Rocchio confirms the contract is for up to $45,000 at a rate of $450 per hour, and states that no payment has been received yet because an invoice has not been submitted.
Cross-examination regarding a study on disclosure
Mr. Pagliuca questions the witness, Rocchio, about a statement in a study that "Two-thirds of the sample did not disclose right away." Pagliuca points out that the term "right away" is not defined. Rocchio clarifies that the article submitted was a summary and admits to not having examined every underlying study or reference cited.
Admission of evidence (Exhibits A and B)
Mr. Pagliuca moves to admit Exhibit A into evidence, which the court allows after confirming no objection from Ms. Pomerantz. He then begins questioning a witness, referred to as 'Doctor', about Exhibit B.
Redirect Examination
Mr. Pagliuca questions Special Agent Richards about the accuracy of notes taken during interviews, confirming they are written with the possibility of future testimony under oath in mind.
Discussion of paragraph 206 of an exhibit
A dialogue between Mr. Pagliuca and the Court regarding the consistency of paragraph 206 with testimony. The Court finds the paragraph is not inconsistent and sustains an objection.
Prior deposition testimony regarding Jane, Jeffrey Epstei...
Mr. Pagliuca questions Mr. Alessi about his previous deposition answer regarding the year Jane met Jeffrey Epstein and Glen Maxwell. Alessi clarifies his answer, stating he confused two different girls he met.
Acknowledgment of ruling
Mr. Pagliuca thanks the judge after the ruling is made.
Inconsistency in witness testimony regarding dates of all...
Mr. Pagliuca argues that a witness's testimony should be impeached due to a discrepancy in the timeline of alleged events. He states the indictment and direct testimony mentioned 2001, but the complaint and cross-examination point to a 2002-2003 timeframe.
Prior deposition testimony regarding Jane, Jeffrey Epstei...
Mr. Pagliuca questions Mr. Alessi about his previous deposition answer regarding the year Jane met Jeffrey Epstein and Glen Maxwell. Alessi clarifies his answer, stating he confused two different girls he met.
Meetings with the government and Epstein Victim Compensat...
Mr. Pagliuca questions the witness, Carolyn, about meetings she attended with Mr. Scarola and the government in 2020, and whether these meetings coincided with her submission to the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund. The witness denies the timing and repeatedly states she cannot recall the meetings.
Omissions in a legal complaint
Mr. Pagliuca argues that the inconsistencies are factual omissions, citing that paragraph 8 does not include the witness's testimony about penetration and intercourse by Epstein.
Meetings with the government and Epstein Victim Compensat...
Mr. Pagliuca questions the witness, Carolyn, about meetings she attended with Mr. Scarola and the government in 2020, and whether these meetings coincided with her submission to the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund. The witness denies the timing and repeatedly states she cannot recall the meetings.
Admissibility of evidence paragraphs
Argument regarding whether specific paragraphs (12 and 206) are factually inconsistent with testimony.
Objection to Exhibits
Objection to exhibits 2C through 2W because they were not written by Mr. Alessi or his wife and are not authenticated.
Confirmation of past events and prior legal complaints
Questioning regarding paragraph 33 of a 2009 complaint and the details of a sexual encounter with Epstein.
Objection during cross-examination
Mr. Pagliuca objects to questioning Dr. Loftus about a single study, arguing it's prejudicial and similar to a previous objection the Court sustained when he tried to cross-examine Dr. Rocchio. The Court questions his intent, and he clarifies he was trying to impeach the witness.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity